-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Catchweights are ok for making some decent match ups, but let's not kid ourselves, it is impossible to make a good argument for any title fight having a catchweight. There are weight divisions for a reason, fucking 17 of them!!!
The worst thing is that the governing bodies actually allow it.
If the fight is for a title, by definition it is not a catchweight fight!
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
There's been more of them historically than I'd first realised.
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Catchweights are ok for making some decent match ups, but let's not kid ourselves, it is impossible to make a good argument for any title fight having a catchweight. There are weight divisions for a reason, fucking 17 of them!!!
The worst thing is that the governing bodies actually allow it.
If the fight is for a title, by definition it is not a catchweight fight!
Well you would think so wouldn't you? So how do you define the Cotto v Geale fight? It was for a title, and there was a 157lb weight limit.
My point is that the WBC shouldn't have sanctioned it as a title fight.
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Catchweights are ok for making some decent match ups, but let's not kid ourselves, it is impossible to make a good argument for any title fight having a catchweight. There are weight divisions for a reason, fucking 17 of them!!!
The worst thing is that the governing bodies actually allow it.
If the fight is for a title, by definition it is not a catchweight fight!
Well you would think so wouldn't you? So how do you define the Cotto v Geale fight? It was for a title, and there was a 157lb weight limit.
My point is that the WBC shouldn't have sanctioned it as a title fight.
Both fighters weighed 160 or under, thus it was a Middleweight title fight...
Nearly thirty years ago the WBC were sanctioning a title fight for two different weights; if the money is right there is no issue.
A catchweight fight is when for example a 199lbs fighter fights in a non title fight against a 165lbs boxer. If it were for a title; if sanction it would be a 'Cruiserweight' fight.
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Catchweights are ok for making some decent match ups, but let's not kid ourselves, it is impossible to make a good argument for any title fight having a catchweight. There are weight divisions for a reason, fucking 17 of them!!!
The worst thing is that the governing bodies actually allow it.
If the fight is for a title, by definition it is not a catchweight fight!
Well you would think so wouldn't you? So how do you define the Cotto v Geale fight? It was for a title, and there was a 157lb weight limit.
My point is that the WBC shouldn't have sanctioned it as a title fight.
Both fighters weighed 160 or under, thus it was a Middleweight title fight...
but Geale was told if he weighed in over 157, the fight was off. Dress it up how you like , but who actually runs the show here, the WBC or the promoters?
Nearly thirty years ago the WBC were sanctioning a title fight for two different weights;
if the money is right there is no issue.
Actually there is an issue. Are we here to see who the best fighters are in each division, or just let people do what they want because "the money's right?
A catchweight fight is when for example a 199lbs fighter fights in a non title fight against a 165lbs boxer. If it were for a title; if sanction it would be a 'Cruiserweight' fight.
like I said, dress it up and make it sound how you like, but if a Fight is for the MW World title, then either boxer is entitled to come in up to the 160 limit. Therefore, for example, Geale should've been allowed to come in at 160 and Cotto can come in at whatever fucking weight he wants to , up to 160.
Because that was not the case, this means there was an agreed weight limit , i.e. A catchweight. Or is it ok because "the money was right."
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
like I said, dress it up and make it sound how you like, but if a Fight is for the MW World title, then either boxer is entitled to come in up to the 160 limit. Therefore, for example, Geale should've been allowed to come in at 160 and Cotto can come in at whatever fucking weight he wants to , up to 160.
Because that was not the case, this means there was an agreed weight limit , i.e. A catchweight. Or is it ok because "the money was right."
Boxing is with the possible exception of Formula One, the most capitalist driven sport in the world, it is ultimately about money, because if you are stepping into the ring to fight and money is not your main motive for doing so, you should for your own health, not be allowed to fight.
Geale got a pay day against a top name fighter; a pay day he may not of got against any other fighter in his division; same went for Lalonde against Leonard. So there really is no issue, and there is no catchweight title fights, that truly is a contradiction in terms...
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
like I said, dress it up and make it sound how you like, but if a Fight is for the MW World title, then either boxer is entitled to come in up to the 160 limit. Therefore, for example, Geale should've been allowed to come in at 160 and Cotto can come in at whatever fucking weight he wants to , up to 160.
Because that was not the case, this means there was an agreed weight limit , i.e. A catchweight. Or is it ok because "the money was right."
Boxing is with the possible exception of Formula One, the most capitalist driven sport in the world, it is ultimately about money, because
if you are stepping into the ring to fight and money is not your main motive for doing so, you should for your own health, not be allowed to fight.
Geale got a pay day against a top name fighter; a pay day he may not of got against any other fighter in his division; same went for Lalonde against Leonard. So there really is no issue, and there is no catchweight title fights, that truly is a contradiction in terms...
I would venture to say that less than 1% make big money! and for the vast majority that according to you shouldn't be allowed to box, money is not their main motive. Also , money has never been the amateur boxers' main motive now or in the past.
I would also say money wasn't the main motive for many,many boxers in the 30's , 40's, 50's and 60's .
Without these people, the sport you like to watch would not even exist.
This is a whole sport, don't get carried away with the top 1%.
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Apologies for butting in but actually, I think it is you who is getting carried away with the 1%.
Sorry. I just have a very strong sense of irony.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beenKOed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
You want to have a childish silly catchweight for some super fight, then go for it. Just leave the titles on the mantle at home so you can still rub one off after the fight. Dont be asking or demanding using cash or blowjobs that a champion drop his weight so you can challenge for his title that has a limit that you cant muster. Then don't challenge twerp. If you cant challenge a weight at that weight for a title that represent that weight then PISS OFF!
Since when can anyone be forced to fight at a catchweight? If you do not like the terms then do not sign!
Perhaps you don't recall Pacquiao/Cotto negotiations? Cotto said no to the catchweight so the sanctioning body said make the fight or be stripped of your title. TR was not offering a fight at 147 though so he could not agree to fair terms. His options were agree to be weakened or lose his belt. It was not as simple as just "do not sign".
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jimanuel Boogustus
Apologies for butting in but actually, I think it is you who is getting carried away with the 1%.
Sorry. I just have a very strong sense of irony.
Not sure exactly what you mean, but if you mean it is way less than 1%, I agree.
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
like I said, dress it up and make it sound how you like, but if a Fight is for the MW World title, then either boxer is entitled to come in up to the 160 limit. Therefore, for example, Geale should've been allowed to come in at 160 and Cotto can come in at whatever fucking weight he wants to , up to 160.
Because that was not the case, this means there was an agreed weight limit , i.e. A catchweight. Or is it ok because "the money was right."
Boxing is with the possible exception of Formula One, the most capitalist driven sport in the world, it is ultimately about money, because
if you are stepping into the ring to fight and money is not your main motive for doing so, you should for your own health, not be allowed to fight.
Geale got a pay day against a top name fighter; a pay day he may not of got against any other fighter in his division; same went for Lalonde against Leonard. So there really is no issue, and there is no catchweight title fights, that truly is a contradiction in terms...
I would venture to say that less than 1% make big money! and for the vast majority that according to you shouldn't be allowed to box, money is not their main motive. Also , money has never been the amateur boxers' main motive now or in the past.
I would also say money wasn't the main motive for many,many boxers in the 30's , 40's, 50's and 60's .
Without these people, the sport you like to watch would not even exist.
This is a whole sport, don't get carried away with the top 1%.
First, define big money. PPV big money? Canelo big money? Manny big money? Flyweight big money? Heavyweight big money?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beenKOed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
like I said, dress it up and make it sound how you like, but if a Fight is for the MW World title, then either boxer is entitled to come in up to the 160 limit. Therefore, for example, Geale should've been allowed to come in at 160 and Cotto can come in at whatever fucking weight he wants to , up to 160.
Because that was not the case, this means there was an agreed weight limit , i.e. A catchweight. Or is it ok because "the money was right."
Boxing is with the possible exception of Formula One, the most capitalist driven sport in the world, it is ultimately about money, because
if you are stepping into the ring to fight and money is not your main motive for doing so, you should for your own health, not be allowed to fight.
Geale got a pay day against a top name fighter; a pay day he may not of got against any other fighter in his division; same went for Lalonde against Leonard. So there really is no issue, and there is no catchweight title fights, that truly is a contradiction in terms...
I would venture to say that less than 1% make big money! and for the vast majority that according to you shouldn't be allowed to box, money is not their main motive. Also , money has never been the amateur boxers' main motive now or in the past.
I would also say money wasn't the main motive for many,many boxers in the 30's , 40's, 50's and 60's .
Without these people, the sport you like to watch would not even exist.
This is a whole sport, don't get carried away with the top 1%.
First, define big money. PPV big money? Canelo big money? Manny big money? Flyweight big money? Heavyweight big money?
Anyone that can reward themselves sufficiently to set them up in a good lifestyle for the rest of their lives, not necessarily Helicopters and stuff.
If you want a price put on it, I would say anyone who earns over half a million a fight.
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Memphis
Catch weight fights are fine, if two naturally 150lb guys want to fight for the middleweight title go for it, but don't expect the next guy who is an actual middleweight to do the same. It's bordering on pathetic.
As far as I'm concerned intentionally tampering with someone's weight (bringing them down below the championship limit) is every bit as bad if not worse than tampering with gloves or using PEDS.
While someone fighting at waay below their normal fighting weight can be very detrimental to their health.... it still boils down to the fighter's choice, unlike being subjected to tampered gloves or PEDS from the other guy.
I don't disagree with you so let me rephrase. Miguel Cotto (for his part in the Daniel Geale fight) is not as bad an individual as say Luis Resto, they don't compare.
But, he and anyone else (including Geale) who sanctioned, promoted or participated in that fight in any way should have a good look at themselves.
What they did is disregard good sense and ignore precedent in allowing a healthy man to enter the ring against a man who was clearly crippled by weight. They collectively took all the hard lessons we have learned about fighter safety and dehydration and threw them in the bin, all in the name of paper titles and making a buck.
Geale may have been well compensated for his efforts (or lack thereof) but had things gone tits up in there, his medical bills would have carried on growing long after his pay day was gone. We would then as a boxing community be looking at the governing body, the promoter and the athletic commission to be providing support to him and his family.
It is a fighters choice, but how many fighters have the luxury of turning down career high paydays? The sanctioning bodies in certain circumstances should remove the opportunity to say yes in my opinion.
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Memphis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Memphis
Catch weight fights are fine, if two naturally 150lb guys want to fight for the middleweight title go for it, but don't expect the next guy who is an actual middleweight to do the same. It's bordering on pathetic.
As far as I'm concerned intentionally tampering with someone's weight (bringing them down below the championship limit) is every bit as bad if not worse than tampering with gloves or using PEDS.
While someone fighting at waay below their normal fighting weight can be very detrimental to their health.... it still boils down to the fighter's choice, unlike being subjected to tampered gloves or PEDS from the other guy.
I don't disagree with you so let me rephrase. Miguel Cotto (for his part in the Daniel Geale fight) is not as bad an individual as say Luis Resto, they don't compare.
But, he and anyone else (including Geale) who sanctioned, promoted or participated in that fight in any way should have a good look at themselves.
What they did is disregard good sense and ignore precedent in allowing a healthy man to enter the ring against a man who was clearly crippled by weight. They collectively took all the hard lessons we have learned about fighter safety and dehydration and threw them in the bin, all in the name of paper titles and making a buck.
Geale may have been well compensated for his efforts (or lack thereof) but had things gone tits up in there, his medical bills would have carried on growing long after his pay day was gone. We would then as a boxing community be looking at the governing body, the promoter and the athletic commission to be providing support to him and his family.
It is a fighters choice, but how many fighters have the luxury of turning down career high paydays? The sanctioning bodies in certain circumstances should remove the opportunity to say yes in my opinion.
I'm sure it'll come across as an inevitable defense of Cotto, but while I agree that a fighter's wellbeing and safety come before all else, it's hardly the opponent's responsibility to gauge whether "X" amount of weight loss is going to physically hurt the other fighter. As with all other fighters who have established catchweights, Cotto set the weight and Geale's camp accepted. Maybe Geale was willing to make the sacrifice in order to secure the payday. But his people are the ones who should've known better. Sadly, this is neither the first nor the last time this type of thing has happened, and it may take a near-tragedy in the ring to set people's minds straight.
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
like I said, dress it up and make it sound how you like, but if a Fight is for the MW World title, then either boxer is entitled to come in up to the 160 limit. Therefore, for example, Geale should've been allowed to come in at 160 and Cotto can come in at whatever fucking weight he wants to , up to 160.
Because that was not the case, this means there was an agreed weight limit , i.e. A catchweight. Or is it ok because "the money was right."
Boxing is with the possible exception of Formula One, the most capitalist driven sport in the world, it is ultimately about money, because
if you are stepping into the ring to fight and money is not your main motive for doing so, you should for your own health, not be allowed to fight.
Geale got a pay day against a top name fighter; a pay day he may not of got against any other fighter in his division; same went for Lalonde against Leonard. So there really is no issue, and there is no catchweight title fights, that truly is a contradiction in terms...
I would venture to say that less than 1% make big money! and for the vast majority that according to you shouldn't be allowed to box, money is not their main motive. Also , money has never been the amateur boxers' main motive now or in the past.
I would also say money wasn't the main motive for many,many boxers in the 30's , 40's, 50's and 60's .
Without these people, the sport you like to watch would not even exist.
This is a whole sport, don't get carried away with the top 1%.
I stand by what I wrote. If you are fighting for a £Million or for £50; if that money is not your primary motivation, you should not be in the ring.
In this instance Geale I suspect got good to great money because he agreed to fight at 157lbs. What you are suggesting is that, that is wrong. I am not, I want to see fighters make as much money as possible and in some circumstances contract clauses on weight, or indeed catchweight matchmaking can help this.
